Local lawmakers react to state budget

Most area legislators voted against the $31.5 billion general fund budget that Pennsylvania's General Assembly sent to Gov. Tom Wolf on Thursday.

Voting with the majority for the 2016-17 spending plan were Sen. Rich Alloway II, R-Chambersburg, and Rep. Adam Harris, R-Mifflintown.

Voting with the minority against the budget were Sen. John Eichelberger, R-Hollidaysburg, and area representatives, all Republicans – Rob Kauffman of Chambersburg, Paul Schemel of Greencastle, Jesse Topper of Bedford, Mark Keller of Landisburg, Dan Moul of Gettysburg and Will Tallman of New Oxford.

“In stark contrast to last year’s painful and protracted budget debate, this year’s process saw the legislative leaders from all four caucuses come together to find common ground,” Alloway said. “Both chambers, with an overwhelming bi-partisan majority, passed a balanced budget that was 56 percent lower than the amount of new spending originally proposed by Gov. Wolf in February and did so without the need to raise the state sales or personal income tax.”

Providing an on-time budget that does not require broad based taxes, and provides school districts and counties with the certainty for the coming year is “a clear victory for all of us,” according to Alloway.

“Clearly, no single individual gets everything they want in this process, and Sen. Alloway is no exception,” said his Chief of Staff Jeremy Shoemaker.

Eichelberger said the budget increase is nearly 4 percent, much higher than the economy’s inflation rate of 1.02 percent.

“It is a little difficult to get the true amount of increase from last year because some of the budget lines may include or not include spending for things that were accounted for differently last year,” he said.

That’s the reason that Schemel said he voted against the budget. The Senate moved about $90 million off the general fund budget and into special appropriations. The funding is for the state’s higher education programs, including Penn State, Pitt, Temple, state community colleges and the 14 state-owned universities.

“Mine was more of a protest vote,” Schemel said. “We should keep things in the budget a little more transparent.”

Schemel voted for the earlier House version of the budget it because it was a compromise, he said. He didn’t want to go into budget overtime as Harrisburg did last year.

Kauffman said the state government’s rate of growth is not sustainable and the legislature must do more to eliminate waste and reform the state’s two pension systems. The budget also relies on “unpredictable” revenue from taxes on tobacco, wine and gaming.

“With this rapid growth in spending, taxpayers are in danger of having to pay increased taxes in the near future to support government spending increases,” Kauffman said. “Basing revenue on tobacco sales, which continue to decline, along with unproven taxes on gaming and the sale of wine in grocery stores, is a recipe for failure. I just don’t see these sources being able to support the amount of additional growth in the budget.”

“Any household that spends more money than it takes in can be considered irresponsible,” Tallman said. “The people’s ‘household’ in Harrisburg is guilty of the same transgression. Senate Bill 1073 calls for spending 4.8 percent more of Pennsylvanians hard-earned dollars than in 2015-16. A year ago, the majority of the General Assembly opposed a spending increase that was much less than that figure.”

“Responsible Pennsylvanians spend only what they have in living within their means and expect the same from their state government. This budget fails to do that. We should be implementing cost reductions and finding revenues that don’t involve taking more money from taxpayers. The consequences of this budget may not be felt immediately, but ultimately, this level of excess spending only hurts the taxpayers.
“Pennsylvania has decades of deep-rooted fiscal problems that cannot be solved by simply throwing more money at them. In addition to increasing spending to unsustainable levels, this budget fails to address cost drivers that will come roaring back in 2017-18.
“Government must be held accountable to the people who pay the bills and cannot continue to grow excessively while taxpayers continue to struggle. Defeating this legislation would likely have resulted in not passing an on-time budget; however, we were not willing to throw hard-working taxpayers under the bus simply to meet a deadline. It is wrong for government to spend money it doesn’t have and then require its citizens to make up the difference.”

The budget passed the Senate 47-3 and the House 154-44. Legislators were negotiating late in the week on how to pay for the spending package.